The  University  of  North  Carolina 
Chapel  HiU 


The  Admission  of  Women 

to  the 

University 

By 

President  H»  W.  Chase 


March,  1923 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/admissionofwomenOOchas 


The  Admission  of  Women  to  the 
University  of  North  Carolina 

The  question  of  co-education  at  the  University  has 
aroused  so  much  discussion  that  it  seems  to  me  the 
position  of  the  University  administration  should  be 
made  clear.  The  position  is,  in  a  word,  that  the 
policy  under  which  the  University  is  now  operating, 
and  which  has  been  decided  upon  after  careful 
thought,  is  altogether  in  keeping  with  the  logic  of 
the  situation,  and  with  the  mature  thought  of  tJie 
great  majority  of  both  men  and  women  in  the  State. 
There  appears  no  evidence  that  it  should  be  changed. 
What  does  appear,  however,  is  a  considerable  mis- 
understanding of  just  what  that  policy  is,  and  a 
begging  of  the  question  brought  about  by  the  division 
of  opinion  as  to  whether  a  building  for  women  should 
be  erected  at  this  time. 

The  question  as  to  the.  immediate  erection  of  a 
woman's  building  is  one  to  be  determined  in  terms 
of  what  is  practicable  now.  The  University's  atti- 
tude toward  women  students,  on  the  other  hand,  can 
be  considered  only,  as  it  has  been  considered,  in  the 
large  and  permanent  terms  of  State  policy.  Let  us 
see,  then,  on  what  the  University's  policy  is  founded. 

k  Equality  for  Both  Sexes 

In  the  first  place,  no  great  democracy  is  possible 
today  without  full  and  free  recognition  on  the  part 
of  its  citizens  of  the  fact  that  there  must  be  for 
both  sexes  equality  of  educational  opportunity.  The 
State  of  North  Carolina,  in  her  rapid  progress  needs 
trained  women,  women  of  wide  horizons  a^nd  clear 
vision,  every  whit  as  badly  as  she  needs  trained  men. 
In  so  far  as  higher  education  opens  a  way  to  life, 
to  larger  life,  that  way  must  be  open  to  young  women 
and  young  men  alike.  In  so  far  as  higher  education 
is  a  means,  as  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  said 

3 


p  3c>oSfe 


it  was,  to  promote  '  ^  the  happiness  of  the  rising  gener- 
ations/^ the  rising  generation  without  distinction  of 
sex  is  entitled  to  its  benefits. 

Second.  The  University  of  North  Carolina  is  the 
State  University,  the  head  of  the  State's  educational 
system,  maintained  from  the  public  funds,  to  serve 
the  State  whose  creation  and  instrument  it  is.  It  is, 
as  it  is  described  in  the  Constitution,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  youth''  of  the  State.  No  constitutional 
provisions,  no  legislative  enactments,  bar  women  from 
its  halls.  It  is,  therefore,  its  duty  and  privilege  to 
function  in  the  education  of  women  in  whatever  ways 
are  designed  to  insure  to  the  women  of  the  State 
equality  of  educational  opportunity  through  the 
State's  educational  system.  It  cannot  conceivably 
take  any  other  position;  it  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
satisfied  with  any  policy  which  would  mean  that  it 
refused  to  play  its  part  in  making  possible  a  well- 
rounded  system  of  higher  education  through  State 
support  for  women  as  well  as  for  men.  It  cannot 
deny  its  function  as  the  University  of  a  democratic 
State,  whose  citizens  of  both  sexes  share  equally  the 
duties  and  the  rights  of  citizenship. 

Keeping  the  two  principles  stated  above  in  mind, 
it  is  clear  that  the  part  which  the  University  should 
play  becomes  a  matter  of  definition,  a  question  of 
fact  as  to  what  is  essential  to  make  equality  of  edu- 
cational opportunity  a  reality.  It  is  a  questioTi  to  be 
determined,  that  is,  in  the  light  of  the  facts  as  to 
what  the  State  is  doing  and  should  do  for  the  educa- 
tion of  women,  and  which  can  be  wisely  settled  on 
no  other  basis.  What  are  the  significant  facts?  To 
my  mind  they  are  these. 

Development  in  State  is  Different 

State  universities  in  most  sections  of  the  country 
have  not  separated  their  facilities  for  the  higher 
education  of  women  from  those  for  men.  Such  State 
universities  as  those  of  lov/a',  Michigan,  California — 


4 


in  fact,  those  of  the  middle  western  states  generally — 
offer  university  education  to  women  from  the  fresh- 
man class  up  through  the  graduate  school  on  the  same 
campus  and  under  the  same  instructors  as  for  men, 
and  have  done  so  from  their  foundation.  In  North 
Oarolina  the  development  has  been  somewhat  different. 
With  the  full  assent  and  active  support  of  the  citizen- 
ship of  the  State,  the  institution  for  women  at  Greens- 
boro, originated  as  the  Normal  College,  is  broadening 
into  the  North  Carolina  College  for  Women.  I  trust 
that  no  one  will  think  me  presumptions  for  saying 
anything  in  this  connection  about  another  institution 
than  the  one  I  have  the  privilege  to  serve;  it  is  essen- 
tial if  the  situation  is  to  be  clarified.  The  North 
Carolina  College  for  Women,  then,  with  the  thoughtful 
citizenship  of  both  sexes  in  the  State  behind  it,  began 
some  years  ago  its  development  into  a  State-supported 
institution  of  collegiate  grade  and  scope,  and  has  been 
recognized  as  a  standard  college  by  the  Southern  As- 
sociation of  Colleges  and  Secondary  Schools.  This 
matter  of  policy  in  the  higher  education  of  women  is, 
I  believe,  settled  in  the  minds  of  the  State,  and  to  it, 
as  the  State  has  defined  it,  the  University  should,  and 
does,  cordially  assent. 

Now  this  means  certain  things.  It  means,  first, 
that  the  University  cannot,  and  should  not,  attempt 
to  do  what  Iowa,  and  Michigan,  and  California,  and 
their  neighbors  have  done;  adopt  a  policy  which  en- 
rolls hundreds  and  thousands  of  women  in  elementary 
classes  on  the  same  campus  with  men.  In  none  of  the 
States  which  have  done  this  does  there  exist  a  sep- 
arate state  institution  for  women  playing  a  part  in 
the  state's  educational  system  comparable  to  that 
played  by  the  North  Carolina  College  for  Women. 
The  point  should  be  emphasized,  because  I  do  not 
think  that  it  is  fully  understood.  State-supported 
normal  schools  for  women  exist  all  over  the  country; 
separated  state  colleges  for  women  are  rare.  The 


5 


most  fully  developed  example  outside  of  North  Caro- 
lina is  probably  the  State  College  for  Women  of 
Florida,  which  is  located  at  Tallahassee,  while  the 
State  University  (to  which  I  believe  women  are  not 
admitted  at  all)  is  at  Gainesville. 

In  the  light,  then,  of  our  local  situation,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  a  policy  of  absolutely  free  and  unre- 
stricted co-education  at  the  University  of  North  Caro- 
lina would  not  be  wise.  It  would  involve  on  a  large 
scale  a  duplication  of  resources  and  of  expenditure 
for  large  elementary  classes;  such  an  unnecessary 
duplication  as  should  have  no  place  in  a  well-con- 
ceived State  system  of  higher  education. 

Graduate  Work  at  Chapel  Hill 

Let  us  consider  next  the  other  extreme,  that  of 
graduate  and  professional  instruction.  Such  instruc- 
tion has  been  built  up  through  years  of  effort  at 
Chapel  Hill.  It  is  expensive,  it  is  w^ork  of  Univer- 
sity, as  distinguished  from  collegiate,  type.  The 
State  demands  such  work  of  its  University.  It  is 
one  of  the  functions  for  the  performance  of  which 
it  exists.  I  do  not  believe  that  I  am  saying  any- 
thing to  which  the  friends  of  North  Carolina  Col- 
lege for  Women  would  not  assent  in  stating  frankly 
my  opinion  that,  save  for  the  fields  into  which  women 
largely  enter,  the  logical  place  for  graduate  and  pro- 
fessional work  for  both  women  and  men  is  at  the 
University  of  North  Carolina.  This  is  at  once  the 
simplest  and  most  economical  solution;  the  simplest 
in  that  strong  schools  already  functioning  exist  at 
Chapel  Hill;  the  most  economical  in  that  the  dupli- 
cation of  specialists,  books  and  apparatus  would  be  a 
terribly  costly  business.  Is  it  not  clear,  then,  that 
the  graduate  and  professional  schools  of  the  Univer- 
sity should,  as  a  wise  measure  of  State  policy,  always 
be  open  to  women  as  well  as  to  men?  I,  personally, 
am  absolutely  convinced  that  it  is. 


6 


As  to  Advanced  Undergraduate  Work 

So  far,  then,  a  logical  policy  would  seem  to  point 
to  the  exclusion  of  women  from  elementary  work  at 
the  University,  and  their  admission  to  graduate  and 
professional  work.  But  there  is  still  another  point. 
What  of  their  admission  to  advanced  undergraduate 
courses!  The  answer  to  this  question  is,  I  think, 
clear.  It  is  inevitable  that,  as  soon  as  we  get  beyond 
the  elementary  courses  of  freshman  and  sophomore 
grades,  which  are  fairly  well  standardized  in  all 
good  colleges,  institutions  will  vary  in  the  range  and 
scope  of  the  advanced  courses  which  they  develop  in 
this  or  tliat  department,  and  that  students  of  vary- 
ing types  of  mind  and  interest  will  find  at  different 
institutions  that  work  which  most  nearly  meets  their 
needs.  Local  situations,  matters  of  institutional 
policy,  naturally  lead  to  greater  developments  in  ad- 
vanced work  at  a  given  institution  in  some  fields 
rather  than  others.  It  would  seem  logical,  therefore, 
that  women  who  find  at  the  University  as  juniors  and 
seniors  advanced  courses  which  the  University  has 
developed,  and  which  are  in  line  with  their  serious 
interests,  should  be  allowed  to  pursue  them.  Any 
other  policy  would,  I  believe,  be  a  contradiction  in 
fact  of  the  theory  of  equality  of  educational  oppor- 
tunity upon  which  our  State  system  of  higher  educa- 
tion must  be  based,  inasmuch  as  the  needs  of  young 
women  of  widely  varying  types  of  interest  must  be 
considered  if  real  equality  of  opportunity  is  to  exist. 
There  is  in  such  a  position  no  conflict  of  scope  be- 
tween the  institutions  at  Greensboro  and  at  Chapel 
Hill;  rather  in  this  respect  they  are  to  be  considered 
as  supplementing  each  other. 

Policy  Is  Not  New 

I  The  policy  I  have  outlined  is,  I  believe,  fully  in 
■accord  with  the  logic  of  the  situation.    It  is  not 

I  7 


original  with  me,  but  is  the  policy  under  which  the 
University  has  been  operating  for  years.  Women 
have  been,  and  are,  welcome  here  under  that  policy. 
It  has  not,  I  think,  been  fully  understood,  and  I  have 
attempted  to  clarify  it.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should 
be  changed,  save  as  it  changes  in  detail  of  itself 
naturally  through  the  years,  in  terms  of  the  offerings 
of  North  Carolina'  College  for  Women  and  of  the 
University  in  this  or  that  department.  I  believe  it 
is  a  policy  upon  which  the  friends  of  both  institu- 
tions can  unite,  as  wise  alike  for  the  institutions  and 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  education  of  women  in 
the  State. 

The  question  of  a  building  for  women  at  this  time 
is  another  question.  It  is  not,  and  should  not  be 
considered  as,  a  determining  factor  in  the  Univer- 
sity's attitude  toward  women.  Whether  it  can  or 
cannot  be  built  at  this  mombnt  is  a  matter  which 
must  be  carefully  studied  in  the  light  of  all  the  facts, 
and  of  the  best  interests  of  the  University  and  of  the 
State.  But  whether  or  not  it  is  built  at  this  moment, 
the  provisions  of  adequate  material  facilities  for 
women  at  the  University  in  accord  with  its  fixed 
policy  is  an  obligation  which  the  University  cannot, 
and  has  no  desire  to,  escape.  On  the  contrary,  the 
University  has  no  deeper  satisfaction  than  that  ol 
proper  provision  for  the  needs  of  the  growing  com- 
monwealth which  it  serves. 

But  this  is  apart  from  my  main  point.  What  I 
have  tried  to  say,  as  clearly  as  I  know  how,  is  that 
the  University  believes  in  equality  of  educational  op- 
portunity for  both  sexes,  and  in  its  duty  to  see  to 
it  that  it  does  its  part  to  help  make  that  principle 
a  reality.  ^ 

i 


8 


